Ms N Mulligan v University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust — 2023

Ms Mulligan brought complaints of direct race discrimination and harassment against University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust arising from her working relationship with NL on C503 between June and September 2021. The tribunal found that the relationship had initially been cordial, that any interaction after September 2021 was not line management between them, and that the claimant's broad allegation of daily degrading comments was not supported by the evidence. It found that comments about shift times, childcare arrangements, and the claimant's work conduct were ordinary workplace management issues rather than race-related abuse.

The central disputed incident was the 22 July 2021 discussion about NL's road traffic accident. The tribunal accepted that NL said the other driver was black and described him as big and burly, but rejected the claimant's case that NL had said it did not matter because he was 'only a black man'. It held that the proven description was part of a wider account of the accident, was not unwanted conduct, and was not made because of the claimant's race or her partner's race. The tribunal also rejected the claimant's assertions that NL had made repeated derogatory remarks about her being Irish.

On the harassment and direct discrimination claims, the tribunal applied section 26 EqA, section 13 EqA, the burden of proof approach in Igen v Wong, and the race discrimination authorities it cited, including Shamoon, Khan, Nagarajan and Gould. It concluded that the proven factual allegations did not show unlawful race discrimination or race-related harassment. It also found that, even if the claimant had been able to shift the burden, NL had given an innocent explanation based on workplace management and a factual account of the accident, with race playing no part.

The tribunal further found that the claims were out of time under section 123 EqA. It held that the relevant period of conduct ran from July 2021 to September 2021, and even on a generous view any final act would have required ACAS contact by 20 January 2022. The claimant did not contact ACAS until 25 July 2022. The tribunal accepted that she said she lacked confidence in the respondent, but found that this did not adequately explain the delay and that the respondent had been materially prejudiced because the allegations were not raised in time for a fresh investigation. It therefore refused to extend time and dismissed the claims in their entirety.